REV 2.0: MISLEADER. *Hyatt* "Folks, the Washington spin machine is about to go into "full spin " : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

The Y2K Newswire Fact Sheet : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread


The Y2K Newswire Fact Sheet on the Leaked Navy Documents

Folks, the Washington spin machine is about to go into "full spin cycle" on these Navy documents. You're going to see the whole thing relentlessly attacked. To get ready for this spin job, prepare yourself with the following facts:

FACT #1: Our government sat on this information and made no effort to make it available to the American people. That's what we mean when we say the information was "kept hidden from the public." It doesn't mean the document had to be stamped "top secret." It just means they HAD the information and they SAT on it. This inaction in inexcusable. In fact, it is negligent.

FACT #2: Just because the documents were buried somewhere on a Navy web site doesn't mean they were easily reachable by the public. For example, Y2K Newswire has many, many documents filed under the main web site but not linked from the main page. Unless you know the FILE NAME of the document, you can't get to it (even though we could still claim they are "publicly available"). That's why these Navy documents stayed secret for so long: nobody knew they were there and the U.S. government sure didn't go out of its way to tell anybody about them!

FACT #3: The Y2K deniers first called this a hoax. But when John Koskinen verified the authenticity of the documents, suddenly the Y2K deniers switched arguments. "Okay, they're real now, but they don't mean anything."

FACT #4: Y2K Deniers are now attacking the report by suggesting -- with no evidence to back this up, by the way -- a worst-case rating was the "default" and that ratings were only eased as information became available. Apparently, they think all utilities should be marked as "compliant" unless they tell you they're not. In this way, Y2K Deniers are assuming, once again, that you should wholeheartedly trust every utility company that issues some kind of rosy-sounding press release (but refuses to document their Y2K compliance status). To Y2K "pollys," no news is good news. NO INFORMATION = FULL COMPLIANCE, apparently.

FACT #5: The U.S. Navy is now engaged in wholesale damage control. Watch for more news announcements denying everything. They'll say things like, "We expect everything to be fine." This is the REACTION to the news, not the news. Of course they have to control the spin on this. All of a sudden, with this story breaking, people are learning the truth about Y2K.

FACT #6: Y2K Newswire does not know the identity of the Navy person who leaked these documents (thank God), but we do know that "heads will roll!" in the search to find the courageous person who leaked it.

FACT #7: The AP did their homework on this story. Two thumbs up to the Associated Press' Ted Bridis who actually did the research and ran with a story that every other news organization would have called "kooky."

Y2K Newswire's coverage of this important breaking news continues through the weekend and into next week. Stay tuned...

_____________________________________________ Suffered a computer glitch? Report it:

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Y2KOK.ORG), August 20, 1999


And this from Michael Hyatt:



Yesterday morning began like any other weekday morning. I got up, poured myself a cup of coffee, logged onto the Internet, and started reading the Y2K headlines and e-mail. There were the usual don't-worry-be-happy spin reports from the government, banking, and utility industries. There was also a liberal sprinkling of failure reports, some provided by the mainstream media; most via private e-mail. (Although the frequency and severity of these reports have been steadily increasing, they have now almost become routine for me.)

However, an e-mail from a friend stopped me cold: "Secret Government Study Reveals Massive Y2K Problems in American Cities." He then gave me the link and asked me to read the report for myself. If the report had not been written by a trusted friend, I would have dismissed it immediately as another sensationalistic Y2K headline.

The Report was written by Jim Lord and entitled "The Pentagon Papers of Y2k: Cities at Risk from the Year 2000 Computer Crisis." You can read it for yourself at:

(Yes, the "to" at the end of the address is correct. Jim's website is located on a secure server in Tonga. He did not want someone in the U.S. to shut him down because they didn't like the message. If you get an error message when you try to access the site, keep trying. Jim had over 400,000 hits to his home page yesterday, and the server has gone down several times since then.)

Overview of the Report

The report is based on a secret U.S. Navy assessment of U.S. cities, which Jim claimed that he had obtained from "a confidential source of the highest reliability and integrity." The information is, quite frankly, shocking. It is what I have suspected all along, but didn't have any way to corroborate.

The survey was conducted to determine the risk of utility failures at military facilities worldwide. (The military is also dependent on the civilian infrastructure.)

The Navy provides its assessment of 125 American cities, dividing them into three categories: those cities where

(1) partial failure is probable (43 cities, including Charlotte, NC; Columbus, OH; Dallas, TX; Houston, TX; Knoxville, TN; Mobile, AL; Norfolk, VA; Philadelphia, PA; Tulsa, OK; Washington, DC; and Several others);

(2) partial failure is likely (28 cities, including Atlanta, GA; Charleston, SC; Chattanooga, TN; Columbia, SC; Ft. Lauderdale, FL; Fort Worth, TX; Jacksonville, FL; Miami, FL; Nashville, TN; New Orleans, LA; Orlando, FL; and others); and

(3) total failure is likely (44 cities, including Baltimore, MD; Buffalo, NY; Erie, PA; Hartford, CT; New York City, NY; San Jose, CA; Seattle, WA Trenton, NJ; and others).

Is your city on the list? Mine was -- and I didn't like what I read. Of course, in this morning's Tennessean (my local paper) both utilities have already taken issue with the Navy report, assuring the public that they will be ready by January 1. Right. What they're really saying is that they are not ready now!

The bottom line is that the picture painted by the Navy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the one portrayed by the federal government and the media establishment.

But Is It True?

After reading the report my hands were shaking. I made my wife, Gail, sit down and read the report while I got dressed for work. When I came back to the den where she was reading, I could tell that she was upset. "What are you going to do about this?"

"Well, I want to send it out to my e-mail newsletter subscribers, but I've got to verify it first." I replied. "The last thing I want to do is get people more stirred up than they already are over an unsubstantiated report."

"How are you going to do that?" Gail asked.

"I'm going to start by calling Jim directly."

I have known Jim Lord now for several months. We have been on a couple of shows together, and I have developed a deep respect for his thorough research and knowledge of the technical aspects of Y2K. He is a retired Naval officer with 24 years of active service. He has been involved in a number of fields, including electronics and nine years in the software industry.

Jim is a well-known Y2K expert, having written more than 90 articles on the subject. He is best known for his moderate, reasoned approach to Y2K. His perspective on Y2K has been similar to mine -- Y2K is not the-end-of-the-world-as-we- know-it, but it's probably going to be worse than the equivalent of a three-day, winter snowstorm. If anything, my experience with Jim is that he *understates* his assertions and supports them with ample evidence.

When I finally spoke with Jim late yesterday afternoon (Thursday), he told me that he was convinced that the report was authentic. "I've seen a lot of official Navy documents in my day," he said, "and this one has all the earmarks of the real thing." He then told me the report had specific Navy jargon that only Navy-insiders would know and understand.

While this sounded good, I wasn't quite sure I was willing to step out on this limb without seeing the actual document and verifying it with someone inside the Navy. Jim said he had requested the supporting documents from the Navy, using the "Freedom of Information Act." Unfortunately, under the law, the government has 20 days to comply with the request. At this point, I decided that I would simply send the information about the report to you and my other subscribers and insert an appropriate disclaimer.

A few minutes later, Jim called me back. "I just got off the phone with an Associated Press writer by the name of Ted Bridis. He had spoken with John Koskinen (the President's "Y2K Czar"), who has confirmed the authenticity of the report. It's the real deal, alright." The Washington Post just published Brandis report this morning (Friday). You can read it yourself at: idx.html

And by the way, lest you think the Navy report is based on old data, it is dated June 1999. Koskinen's office also provided to Brandis (who subsequently e-mailed it to Jim Lord) the spreadsheet on which the Navy report was based. It was last updated on August 4, 1999.

Koskinen is already spinning the report, of course. (Why am I not surprised?) His explanations are some of the most ridiculous I've heard so far. For example, according to the Associated Press story (published in the Washington Post):

- "President Clinton's top Y2K adviser, John Koskinen, called the Navy's conclusions overly cautious, saying they assumed that major utilities would fail unless proved otherwise."

Duh. I don't consider this overly cautious. This is the ONLY safe assumption anyone can make. To assume otherwise is to be hopelessly naove. If the Navy is being this cautious, why shouldn't we?

- "Koskinen said the Navy report's worst-case predictions for failures were marked as 'interim' or 'partial' assessments."

What is this supposed to mean? The report is dated June 1999. The spreadsheet, which Koskinen's office sent over to Brandis was updated on August 4! Of course, it is "interim"; we haven't rolled over to January 1 yet. Every report you read from now until then will be "interim." That doesn't invalidate it. He is simply stating the obvious.

I have no idea what he means by "partial." If he means that it doesn't deal with every city, fine. It doesn't claim to. In fact, the only cities discussed are those where the military has a strategic or tactical interest.

- "'It's not nearly as interesting as the world coming to an end,' said Koskinen. 'The way they worked was, until you have information for contingency planning purposes, you ought to assume there was a problem.'"

This is the rhetorical technique of trying to make something look ridiculous by associating it with something truly ridiculous. The Navy doesn't say it's the end of the world and neither did Jim Lord (for the record, neither do I). But he implies that people are making a mountain out of a molehill. He wants us to believe that this was just a routine planning exercise. Nothing to get excited about and certainly nothing he didn't already know. Uh-huh.

- "Koskinen said the Navy was not withholding information from anyone, noting that the continually updated report was available until recently on a Web site maintained by the Defense Department."

Oh yea? Well then why didn't I or the small army of Y2K pundits who scour the web daily for Y2K information stumble across it before now. More important, why was it recently taken down. (And, oh by the way, why doesn't he mention the website by name?)

- "'The last people in the world the department is going to keep information from is their own people,' Koskinen said."

Yea, right. Why in the world would we think that he is hiding information from the American people? Just because he has been telling us for months that all is well and there is nothing to fear but fear itself, and just because this is virtually the polar opposite of what the Navy report reveals, doesn't mean we should question his motives or the government's. Rest assured: they have our best interests at heart.

Sorry, but I'm just not buying it.

You really must read Jim Lord's report for yourself. This is the only way to keep from getting confused by the Administration's spin control.

The Implications

There are several important implications you can draw from the Navy's report.

1. The government -- your government! -- has been systematically lying to you about the probable impact of Y2K. They have been more concerned about managing public perception than telling us the truth and letting us manage our own perceptions. Frankly, I resent it. I'm not a child, and I don't appreciate being treated like one. Sadly, I believe this strategy is going to blow up in their collective faces, just as I warned them it would when I testified before Congress a year ago.

Not only has the Administration lied to us (what else is new), but it also looks like Senators Bennett (R-Utah)_and Dodd (D-Conn) have been in on it as well. I truly hope not. Until the nonsense they printed last week in Ann Lander's column, I was a big fan. If they have truly been in the dark, the time to come clean is now. They either need to show some outrage at learning of this report or we must assume they are part of the whole sordid scheme.

2. Y2K is going to be worse than you thought. Look, I've been accused of being a "doom and gloomer" by the nay sayers. And, I've been accused of being an "Y2K optimist" by the true doom and gloomers. I'm like the man who dared to go outside during the Civil War wearing a blue jacket and a pair of gray pants -- he got shot at from both sides.

The truth is that I have been a "Y2K agnostic." The term "agnostic" simply means you can't know. Up until this point, I have stubbornly maintained that no one knows what the impact of Y2K will be. But, this report has changed my perspective. I still don't think Y2K is TEOTWAWKI (i.e., "the end of the world as we know it"), but I do think it is going to be much worse than I anticipated.

3. You must increase the intensity and scope of your Y2K preparations.

I expect this report to be widely distributed over the weekend in the traditional media. Be assured, Koskinen and his cronies are even now working overtime on spin control. You are going to hear all kinds of conflicting reports. That's why I'm taking the time to write now, BEFORE the do- do hits the fan.

Whom are you going to believe: the government, bankers, utility industry executives and others who obviously have a vested interest in managing the public perception or an internal U.S. Navy report that was not intended for public consumption?

I have to tell you: this report has significantly altered my own sense of urgency. The first thing Gail and I did yesterday morning, once she had finished reading the report for herself, was immediately to write up a list of the items we had still not acquired and which we believe will disappear first.

I don't know where you are in your Y2K preparations. I know that everyone on my subscriber list is interested in Y2K, otherwise you wouldn't be a subscriber. However, my suspicion is that only a *fraction* of you are actively engaged in preparing for it. Most of you intend to do some preparations, but, for one reason or another, just haven't gotten started.

Listen to me carefully: YOU ARE ALMOST OUT OF TIME!

What do you think will happen if 5 percent of the American public wakes up tomorrow and decides to buy some supplies, "just in case"? Let me tell you. Y2K supplies will be gone and the shelves will be empty. All it will take is a story like the U.S. Navy report to catch fire.

Will this be the story? I have no idea. I have been amazed at the complacency of the public to Y2K issues. They just don't get it. But at some point, they will. And when they do, the "sleeping giant" will awaken, and the window of opportunity will slam shut.

What You Need to Do Now

What do you need to do? If you haven't started, let me suggest several things (these are in PRIORITY ORDER):

1. Secure an alternative source of water. This is the single most important thing you can do. If there is one thing that is clear from the U.S. Navy report, water utilities in many cities are likely to fail. You can store water in two-liter plastic jugs or 55-gallon, food grade drums. I discuss this at length in THE Y2K PERSONAL SURVIVAL GUIDE, Chapter 5. I've made this chapter available for free -- this weekend only -- on my website at:

At the very least, I would urge you to get a good water filter. If you have one of these, you can use virtually any source of water you can find. Y2K Prep (a company I have a financial interest in) sells the British Berkefeld filter for $279.00. It's one of the best on the market, and the one I bought for my own family. You can get more information by calling (888) 925-2844.

2. Stockpile food and common household goods. I still expect the food supply chain to be disrupted. I have stored a year's worth of food for my family, and I am now actively storing more for the unexpected "guests" that will undoubtedly drop in. I know this seems like a lot, but it should give you some idea of how seriously I take this.

In my book, THE Y2K PERSONAL SURVIVAL GUIDE, Chapter 4, I discuss five categories of food that do *not* require refrigeration. I've also made this chapter available free for the weekend. You can find it at:

The core of my own food storage program is the third category: dehydrated food. It doesn't take up a lot of space (especially compared to normal, hydrated food) and it's relatively cheap (as little as $0.78 per meal). David Dunham, my business partner, has negotiated with several canneries for the best prices any where. He also has available several different packages, so you can build your own program, based on your assessment of the threat and your available resources. Specifically, he has:

- a three-month, one-person package for $295.00 ($1.09 per meal);

- a six-month, one-person package for $495.00 ($0.92 per meal);

- a one-year, one-person package for $895.00 ($.082 per meal); and

- a one-year, four-person package for $3,395.00 ($0.78 per meal).

Right now, you can take delivery IN THREE WEEKS. But I can promise you: THIS WILL NOT LAST.

If you have any intention of ordering a dehydrated food storage program, you need to do it now. You don't have to order it from us, but get it from someone, and DO IT NOW. The longer you wait to order, the longer you will wait to receive your order. And if you wait too long, you may very well not receive it at all. You can call (888) 925-2844 for more information. Please be patient if you don't get through immediately.

3. Secure an alternative source of heat. Unless you live in a climate where the weather is warm -- or at least moderate in the winter -- you need to figure out how you are going to stay warm if the electricity goes off or the natural gas stops flowing. (Please re-visit Jim Lord's report. Notice how many gas utilities the Navy believes are likely to fail.) Again, there are several options -- kerosene or propane space heaters, wood-burning stoves and fireplace inserts, or just plenty of blankets and warm clothing. The important thing is to come up with a game plan and get the supplies you need while you can.

I discuss 12 other key areas of preparedness in THE Y2K PERSONAL SURVIVAL GUIDE, but these three are the most important. If you want to read about the others, you can buy the book at your favorite bookstore or at The exact address is:

I wrote this book to make it as easy as possible for you to prepare. I included specific recommendations, with specific suppliers. If you want to see the table of contents, it is at:

(I also talked David Dunham into giving my book FREE to any one who places an order for the water filter or food.)

Let me mention one final item: an electric generator. Not everyone needs a generator, but if you have medical equipment you are dependent on, a well pump, or other devices you need to power, you don't have many options.

As I have stated in previous newsletter, I bought my Lister-Petter diesel from RJK Power, North America and they still have a supply of reliable Lister-Petter diesel or propane and Kohler propane units at great prices available immediately on a first come-first serve basis. RJK Power also provides PRI fuel stabilizers and fuel filters to protect your Generator (which I also have). Read all about their products at:

Then check pricing at:

and make you own decision. If you think you might need a generator, PLEASE DON'T WAIT. You may not have the option of getting one much longer -- especially now that the Navy report has been leaked.


I know I am going to get a barrage of criticism from sending out this bulletin. I always do. Some will accuse me of fear-mongering. Others will accuse me of profiteering from Y2K. The truth is that I am taking the time to write because I AM CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR WELFARE. Maybe I'm naove, but I still think you can mitigate the effects of this crisis if you take the initiative to prepare for it. But I'm also convinced that if you don't, you WILL become a victim.

The bottom line is that I no longer care about the criticism. I am doing my best to warn people of what's coming. We have worked hard to make it easy for people to get the basic supplies they need at affordable prices. If you want to ignore the warnings signs, fine. But if Y2K turns out to be something more than the federal government's official three-day-winter-snowstorm scenario, you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

Let those who have ears to hear, hear.


Michael S. Hyatt

P.S. Please forward this Special Bulletin on to as many people as you can.


In the event that this special bulletin was forwarded to you by a friend, you can subscribe and my FREE e-mail newsletter delivered directly to your e-mailbox. Please note: I *cannot* sign you up. You must do so yourself at

(c) 1999, The ProSpectives Group

Trash Sent Junk Mail

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Copyright 1998-1999 USA.NET., Inc. All Rights Reserved. Users of this site agree to be bound by USA.NET Net@ddress. Subscriber Agreement.

-- Jon Johnson (, August 20, 1999.

-- cpr (, July 04, 2000


Navy Predicts Widespread Y2K Failure

By Ted Bridis Associated Press Writer Thursday, August 19, 1999; 7:27 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Navy report predicts ``probable'' or ``likely'' failures in electrical and water systems for many cities because of the Year 2000 technology problem -- an assessment more dire than any other made by the government.

President Clinton's top Y2K adviser, John Koskinen, called the Navy's conclusions overly cautious, saying they assumed that major utilities would fail unless proved otherwise.

The most recent version of the study, updated less than two weeks ago, predicted ``probable'' or ``likely'' partial failures in electric utilities that serve nearly 60 of roughly 400 Navy and Marine Corps facilities.

The study predicted ``likely'' partial electrical failures, for example, at facilities in Orlando, Fla.; Gulfport, Miss.; Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; and nine other small- to mid-size cities.

It also predicted ``probable'' partial water system failures in Dallas; Nashville, Tenn.; Houston; Baton Rouge, La.; Montgomery, Ala; Tulsa, Okla.; and 59 other cities.

The study forecast likely partial natural gas failures -- in the middle of winter -- in Albany, N.Y.; Fort Worth, Texas; Pensacola, Fla.; Charleston, S.C.; Columbus, Ohio; and Nashville.

The military report contrasts sharply with predictions from the White House, which weeks ago said in a report that national electrical failures are ``highly unlikely.'' The White House report also said disruptions in water service from the date rollover are ``increasingly unlikely.''

Koskinen, who vouched for the authenticity of the Navy report, noted that all its worst-case predictions for failures were marked as ``interim'' or ``partial'' assessments.

``It's not nearly as interesting as the world coming to an end,'' said Koskinen. ``The way they worked was, until you have information for contingency planning purposes, you ought to assume there was a problem.''

The Year 2000 problem occurs because some computer programs, especially older ones, might fail when the date changes to 2000. Because the programs were written to recognize only the last two digits of a year, such programs could read the digits ``00'' as 1900 instead of 2000, potentially causing problems with financial transactions, airline schedules and electrical grids.

The Navy report was first summarized on an Internet site run by Jim Lord, a Y2K author, who said he obtained it ``from a confidential source of the highest reliability and integrity.''

``The military has to work from the worst case, but so do we,'' Lord told The Associated Press on Thursday. ``It's reprehensible for them to know this and keep it from us.''

Koskinen said the Navy wasn't withholding information from anyone, noting that the continually updated report was available until recently on a Web site maintained by the Defense Department.

``The last people in the world the department is going to keep information from is their own people,'' Koskinen said. ``In fact, the whole purpose of the exercise is to make sure they can provide appropriate information to servicemen on their bases and their families.

The report was pulled off the Web site two weeks, Koskinen said. Neither he nor Defense Department officials offered any reason why.

) Copyright 1999 The Associated Press

-- The other side (of@the.story), July 04, 2000.

BRIDIS' story was later "supplemented by STEVE DAVIS" who explained the train of events that enabled John K. to get to the bottom of the Lord Dumbo "papers" so fast.

However since you "LIKE" Mr. Hyatt, perhaps you need some more of his "interesting comments" on Y2k.



-- cpr (, July 04, 2000.

Creeper the walking genital wart.

-- (, July 04, 2000.

Make it bigger.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 04, 2000.

Why would you want to make a walking genital wart bigger?

-- (, July 04, 2000.

BRIDIS' story was later "supplemented by STEVE DAVIS" who explained the train of events that enabled John K. to get to the bottom of the Lord Dumbo "papers" so fast.

The explanation by John Koskinen that Steve Davis passed along to TB2000 came before the Bridis story.

Koskinen's "Take" On Jim Lord's Pentagon Papers (Steve Davis-- Coalition 2000)

This just in...

Subject: [civicprep] Navy Assessments Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:13:42 -0400 From: "Steve Davis" To: "civicprep"

>From the Civic Preparedness discussion list. To post messages to this list, address them to


I have gotten to what I think is the bottom of this issue. This information comes directly from John Koskinen.

In summary: The Navy report referenced by Mr. Lord was on a web site publicly available until a few weeks ago (not just to people passing along "secret government documents"). The report reflected an attempt by the armed services to begin to collect assessment information about infrastructures in the areas in which we have bases. Like everyone else, the services were having a lot of trouble earlier this year getting people to tell them anything.

The ratings were based on anecdotal information that was updated over time and do not reflect "the official government assessment of any kind. Most significantly, which Jim does not note and may not have known (although he made no inquiries that John knows of ) the instructions were to put a "3" (risk of failure) as the default if information was not available. Earlier this year when base commanders and others were trying to determine the status of local infrastructures here and around the world there wasn't much information available, which is why there were so many "3"s.

The lack of local information was one of the reasons the White House launched the "Community Conversations" initiative in May and why DoD has a related initiative they have asked all their base commanders to lead in their local communities, either by supporting the communities conversation or helping to organize one in the absence of any other facilitators.

Third, the people the leadership at DoD and the services care most about are their troops and the advice sent to them by the Secretary of the Navy -- which is anything but alarmist -- reflects the low level of risks from Y2K as seen by the department leadership. (But they did recommend personal preparedness and continue to do so.)

John and I both agree that, as we move through the fall, we will have more than enough interesting and important matters to pursue. In other words, we won't need to be making mountains out of molehills to keep things interesting.

The moral of this story is to always hold back on assuming these types of reports are 100% accurate until someone takes the time to look for the truth in these stories.

Best wishes, Steve

(Please feel free to send this to anyone who may have gotten the earlier messages)

-- Diane J. Squire (, August 19, 1999

-- The other side (of@the.story), July 04, 2000.

This sure doesn't fit in with creepers side of the story... expect flames.

-- Netghost (no@no.yr), July 04, 2000.

Lets see, we have Lord the Y2K doomsday nut, and Hyatt the opportunistic Y2K doomsday huckster, hawking his wares....

Fortunately, the media soon discovered that Lord was a y2k nut. Here's the rest of the Navy story that never was a real story:

Y2K Pentagon Papers" - "Secret Papers" Back ONLINE - NAVFAC Master Utilities Y2K Preparaedness Status Spreadsheet Explained

As a public service, I also provided the Navy sources so other doomers could make up their own silly y2k horror stories: The NAVFAC Diaries - (Links and humor)

-- FactFinder (, July 04, 2000.

Why do you rant? There are problems. They may not be on you scope, but they are on other peoples. I myself have had 4 computers down in june with very strange problems.

-- ET (, July 05, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ